Dear Moon, Glenn and B-Greekers,
I have been following this thread with great interest. I regret that my
contribution will be so late.
The rendering of RWM. 4:1 below is taken from H KAINH DIAQHKH:
NEOELLHNIKH METAFRASH APO SUMEWN IWANNIDHS, 1994:
TI QA POUME LOIPON; OTI O ABRAAM O PATERAS MAS BRHKE TH DIKAIWSH TOU CARH
SE ERGA THS SARKAS;
It presupposes the word order of the Byzantine text:
TI OUN EROUMEN, ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN hEURHKENAI KATA SARKA;
My translation of IWANNIDHS:
What shall we say then? That Abraham our father obtained his
justification thanks to works of the flesh?
Although it presupposes the Byz text, I don't think it's ABSOLUTELY
DEPENDENT on it. The text of NA27 might also be understood in this way
though with less probability. KATA SARKA could be understood, as above,
as an adverbial phrase modifying hEURHKENAI rather than as an adjectival
modifier of ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN even for the NA27 text, though, as
I say, with less probability.
I see in this rendering elements of both Moon's and Glenn's views. The
rhetorical structure is basically Moon's: a "y/n" question. But it is
logically consonant with Glenn's understanding of the structure and flow
of Paul's argument.
Glenn writes:
<>
[snip] and
<>
[Ghilardi]
The next quote from Glenn is most telling, I think, because it focuses in
on the exact point at issue (which is NOT whether the verse is "wh-" or
"y/n" question):
[Glenn]
In fact, regardless of whether you translate Romans 4.1 as a "wh"
question or a "y/n" question, the issue of whether Gentiles are the
children of Abraham is not the point of the question but presupposed in
the question:
TI OUN? EROUMEN hEURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN *KATA SARKA*?
The answer is "no, he did not get to be our forefather *according to the
flesh*." But that presupposes an assumption common to both writer and
audience that Abraham *is* TON PROPATORA hHMWN.
TI OUN EROUMEN hEURHKENAI ABRAAM TON PROPATORA hHMWN KATA SARKA?
"What then did Abraham our father according to the flesh discover"
presupposes that Abraham is the Gentiles father, but moves from there to
the issue of what he discovered, which is that believing God was imputed
to him for righteousness
[Ghilardi]
And I would add, to put it negatively, as the IWANNIDHS rendering does,
that Abraham discovered that fleshly works are no basis for obtaining
justification.
[Glenn]
(and in the following verses) if we are heirs of his promise, it will be
on the same basis as he received the promise -- by faith.
[Ghilardi]
Now let me go out on a limb and make a prediction:
I predict that neither Moon nor Glenn will like this compromise and
perhaps a few others on the list will dislike it as well.
Yours in His grace,
Richard Ghilardi -- qodeshlayhvh@juno.com
New Haven, CT USA
Nibai kaurno hwaiteis gadriusando in airtha gaswiltith,
silbo ainata aflifnith: ith jabai gaswiltith, manag akran bairith.
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu